EXTERNAL END OF PROJECT EVALUATION for SSMATI

Presented by:

  Small Medium Agribusiness Enterprise Development Services Limited

(SMAED Services Ltd.)

May 2011 

Sustainable Smallholder Cross Border Trade Integration Project (SSMATI)

Content•Introduction(The Consultant)•SSMATTI Background•Purpose of the Study•Planned Targets•Work Plan•Approach and Methodology•Findings•Operations•Recommendations & Conclusions

1.THE CONSULTANT – SMAED SERVICES LTD

•Firm: SMAED Services Ltd•Legitimacy: Registered in Kenya and working in Eastern Africa

•Portfolio: Agribusiness development/Food Security and SMEs Development, Business Development Services

•Contract: Effective from 21/2/2011

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1. Overview

▫Project commenced January 2010- March 2011▫Geographical coverage (Kenya, Uganda,

Rwanda)▫Partners: COMPETE Program (USAID).

2.2. Overall Goal:▫Train Agro dealers on Grain Bulking▫Support agro dealers to establish storage

facilities through matching investments facility▫Link agro dealers to commodity market/Large

Traders

Add the title of this slide

Training agro dealers on grain bulking and aggregation

Supporting agro dealers to establish storage facilities through a matching investment facility

Linking agro dealers to the formal grain markets through grain traders and other large buyers of cereals.

2.3. SSMATI Activities

AGMARK Agro dealer Model Developing Rural-Base, commercially viable agro dealer networks to improve management, technical and financial capacity of Agro dealersCreating rural marketing system to facilitate:

Supply of farm inputs to farmers. Buying and Bulking of grains from farmers.

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)3.1. Purpose for the Evaluation is to: • Assess the extent of SSMATI contribution to

increased cross-border trade.• Provide independent view on the implementation of

the project.• Assess suitability of Institutional frameworks in

terms of; Efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability (Strategy, Operations, Impact & Lessons)

• Determine degree of success or failure of SSMATI• Derive recommendations and conclusions useful for

future programming and where appropriate Project expansion

• Determine the Project’s impacts on improving farmers production, market access and livelihoods

3.2.1. Strategy: ▫ Appropriateness of the AGMARK model of private sector

facilitation▫ Rationale or justification

3.2.2. Operations: Were targets met?▫ Were the project targets met▫ Effectiveness in achieving expected outcomes/objectives▫ Efficiency in optimizing resources and strength of

implementation▫ Client satisfaction

3.3.3. Learning: Are there better ways?▫ Alternatives▫ Best practices▫ Lessons learned

3.2. Objectives and Scope of the Evaluation

3.3. Specific issues to be addressed

TargetsImpacts & Lessons LearnedVolume of grain tradedIncreased quality of grainEffectiveSustainability

4.Detailed Work PlanACTIVITY DATE

Sign Contract 21st Feb 2011

Client Briefing 22nd Feb 2011Literature Review Consultation with Key Stakeholders (AGMARK, Country Director and (COMPETE Program) 23rd -25th Feb 2011

Review of Methodology and design of data collection tools. 22nd -25th February 2011Consultation with Kisumu Office, Data collection Field work in Western Kenya (Siaya, Funyula Teso and Bungoma) 3rd -7th March 2011Field work - Data collection (Isingiro, Kabale, Kisoro, Ntungano, Kanungu / Kihihi, Kasese and Kamwenge ) in Eastern Uganda and Kampala 8th -11th March 2011

Data entry analysis 14th -18th March 2011

Draft Report 21st -25th March 2011

Stakeholder consultation 26th May 2011

Final report 30th May 2011

4.1 Approach and Methodology

• Briefing and de-briefing with client and Key Stakeholders (AGARK, COMPETE Program)

• Desk Review• Face to face interviews• Consultation with key informants and

beneficiaries• Field visits / field level questionnaires.• Electronic Interviews• Data analysis• Draft Report and client comments.• Final Report

5. 1FINDINGS6.1. Training for Agro-Dealers 6.1. 1 Areas of Training

Undertaken• Bulking And Aggregation • Business Mgt • Introduction To Marketing• Market Costing & Pricing • Milking Training • Output Marketing • Pest Control • Post Harvest Handling • Procurement • Record Keeping • Safe Use Of Pesticides • Stock Mgt • Storage • Store Mgt bulking • Warehouse Management

Country

Target

Achieved

%age

Kenya 30 16 53

Uganda

50 57 114

Figure 3.1.2

5.2. RELEVANCE OF AGRO DEALER MODEL

Study revealed that there has been increased cross border trade between Kenya, Eastern Uganda, Western Uganda and Rwanda in terms of volume value and price.

Maize Marketing Smallholder farmers

Before During Increase (% )

90ks 1800 2000 11

Tin 40 80 100

5.3. Access to Farm Inputs

Indicators Before

No. Of Farmers who responded Total no. of Respondents %age

Proximity 35 37 94.6

Timeliness 29 37 78.4

Adequacy 27 27 37 73

Affordability 32 37 86.5

All sampled farmers agreed that access to farm inputs during the project had improved as illustrated in the table below

5.4 Livelihood Improvement for farmers

No. Of positive responded

Total no. of Respondents interviewed

%age

Better feeding 3.5 37 94.6

Intensified farming 27 37 73.0

Diversified farming 32 37 86

Increases assets 27 37 73

Ease of payment of medical bells

31 37 83.8

Ease of fees payment 32 37 86.5

Increased purchasing power

32 37 86.5

Improved income 37 37 100

All the respondents agreed that the project had contributed to their improved livelihood as illustrated

100.0%

86.5%

86.5%

83.8%

73.0%

86.5%

73.0%

94.6%

0.0% 10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%100.0%

Income/Earning

Expenditure/Purchasing Power

Pay Fees Easily

Pay medical Easier

Increased Assets

Diverse Farming

Intenify Farming

Better Feeding

Improved LivelihoodBetter Feeding

Intenify Farming

Diverse Farming

Increased Assets

Pay medical Easier

Pay Fees Easily

Expenditure/Purchasing Power

Income/Earning

6.2. Support to Agro dealer / Matching Investments

a) Provision of Equipments, tools and materials – Weights

b) Improvement of stores / renovations

6.2.1. Type of Equipment / Tools and materials

providedGunny BagsMoisture MetePelletsRenovationsSealing MachineSievesSign PostStacking MachineStationeryStorage BagsTarpaulinsTrolleysWeighing ScaleWorkshop

6.2.2. Targets Indicator Target Achieved %age

KENYA UGANDA KENYA UGANDA KENYA UGANDA

No. of agro dealers to benefit from matching investments

4 10 4 21 100 210

Value of matching investments made to agro dealers

$17,020

$79,000 $11,092

$56,125

65 71

Value of matching investments made by agro dealers

$17,020

$79,000 $16,488

$57,957

97 73

Agro dealers to be linked to large scale buyers / traders

100 50 50

Agro dealers linked to Financial services

4 50 4 28 100 56

Value of capital / loan accessed by agro dealers

$24,000 $30,000

$ 25,641

2,232 107 7

Agro dealers accessing financial services

4 15 1 1 25 7

7. IMPACT7.1 Volume of Trade

Indicator Target Achieved %age

KENYA UGANDA KENYA UGANDA KENYA UGANDA

Volume of grains bought from farmers in MT tonnes

850 750 3,775 2,220 444 296

Volumes of Grains sold to traders in MT

850 750 280 1,767 33 236

Value of Grains Sold in US$ $100,000 $300,0000

$87,415

323,317

87 108

Number of farmers accessing agro dealer output marketing

7,000 7500 6,371 7,887 91 105

7.2 IMPACT

Indicator Target Achieved %age

KENYA UGANDA KENYA UGANDA KENYA UGANDA

Linkages with Cross-border buyers

50 50 44 28 88 56

Buyers sensitized in cross border documentation

4 4 4 6 100 150

7.2 Cross-Border Trade

Volume of TradeLocation Volume of Trade Value

(UGS)Destinati

on

Maize (Tons)

Beans (Tons)

Sorghum

(Tons)

Kisoro 120 70 121,000,000 Rwanda

Kabale 3.5 5 9,850,000 Katuna / Rwanda

Total 123.5 5 70 130,850,000

8.1 Success StoriesIncrease in Grain Handling Capacity

Grain Handling / Bulking Capacity - MaizeBefore After Increase

Kenya 18000 222500 204500Uganda 5000 60000 55000

Grain Handling / Bulking Capacity - BeansBefore After Increase

Kenya 6300 180000 173700Uganda 10000 30000 20000

8.2 Success Stories- Employment Creation

8.3. ILLUSTRATIONS OF CROSS BORDER SALES

Type of Grain

Volume Bulked in

MT

Volume in US$

Volume sold in Mt

Value in US$

Buyer

Bukusu ACE Maize 15 2,009 0.5 781 Cross Busia border

Byuvuhole traders Assoc

Maize 20 4464 17.5 4911 Across Rwanda Border

Friends Agro input Dealers

Maize 9.1 1635 11.1 3167 Sudanese Border

Byuvuhole traders Assoc

Maize 20 4464 20 4911 Rwanda Border

• The general view of all beneficiaries and collaborating partners is that the SSMATI project was a timely project which could not have come at a better time.

• focus on international standards targeting large buyers through improved quality of commodities and best practices learned through both training and exchanges.

• Improved storage practices led to reduction of losses to both farmers and Agro-dealers

• Grain quality issues and improved cross-border trade activities between Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Southern Sudan.

• Employment opportunities • Agro-dealers have received very well the component of

output marketing as additional source of revenue not previously engaged in.

• Most partners feel the project was a good pilot to be improved on with further funding focusing more capacity building and enlisting more beneficiaries.

9.1 Lessons

10.1 Challenges

•Procurement delays – Uganda

•Scope of coverage•More Training

Agro-dealersFarmsPost harvest handling

11.1 Recommendations• Facilitate AGMARK for 3-6 Months to recoup lost time during

pilot period and monitor impact to optimize resources during period for consultation for support to Phase I of the Project.

• Facilitate AGMARK for Phase I Project for longer period e.g 3 years to provide sufficient tie to interact with the agro dealers and measure impact and sustainability of the model.

• Facilitate AGMARK to upscale the project to include more Agro dealers and farers in each of the countries and where possible expand to other COMPETE Program project areas on operations to expand and consolidate markets

• Facilitate AGMARK to institute a short term study on fundamental reasons for low uptake of available credit facility